Sorry, I don't have a soap box, someone needed the wood to print another book.  
I haven't needed nor used an IT book for more that a decade.  I download books 
I need; have an icon in the tray that gets me to the books very quickly; often 
have 6 or 7 books open at once; and have never had a situation where I would 
have found information any sooner.

John Bodoh
InSysCo
540-368-0196
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:[email protected]] On 
Behalf Of Gerhard Postpischil
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 10:10 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Is the PoOP too big? (was Assembler manuals)

On 8/24/2011 8:54 AM, Bodoh John Robert wrote:
> It's hard for me to believe that trees are intentionally
> being destroyed so reference manuals can be printed.  Have
> you not heard of Adobe reader or BookManager?  These tools
> make looking up information so much easier and quicker over
> looking in a printed book that I can't understand why anyone
> would ever need a printed reference book.  With sophisticated
> search engines, the "size" of the book no longer matters.

It's too bad you didn't read my post completely before getting
on your soap box. I do use digital versions of the manuals for
quick reference, but frequently doing so can take longer than
finding information in multiple manuals concurrently, as well as
retrieving frequently used information.  And you seem to be
unaware that trees, at least in this neck of the woods, are a
renewable resource, and have been for many millions of years.



> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gerhard
> Postpischil Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 3:29 PM To:
> [email protected] Subject: Re: Is the PoOP too
> big? (was Assembler manuals)

> The printed manual is getting to be unwieldy. I could see
> having it split into two, or possibly three, volumes: the
> basic hardware design and features, the privileged
> instructions, and the unprivileged (and semi-privileged) one,
> with Appendix A split (and expanded) accordingly. The digital
> version is just fine, except for the skimpy Appendix A.


Gerhard Postpischil
Bradford, VT

Reply via email to